Intel roadmap reveals 10-core Xeon E5-2600 V2 Ivy Bridge CPU

[deconstruct60]

It is interesting to note that during the most recent product intros, iMacs have been the computers on stage running the presentations. Clearly, a company such as Apple would want to "show off" their very best.

No. Apple wants to show off what people buy. iMacs outsell Mac Pros by an order of magnitude. The large dog and pony shows are not niche shows. They are productions for a broad audience. They should show what the broad audience may buy for desktop options.

Besides it is neater ( less cabling , set-up ,etc. ) to use iMacs on stage.
If anything the demo would be of the Apple Cinema Display and not the Mac Pro if they decoupled the display from the Mac.

While I agree with a lot of you that Apple given their history, we should not expect too much from them, we can at least hope that the next machine would end up with this 10 core chip.

It is about as equally likely going to get a Sandy Bridge Mac Pro out of Apple sometimes in 2013. Especially if Intel is slow rolling the E5 1600 series closer to Q4.

 

[deconstruct60]

Here is a scary thought. What if Apple doesn't re-do the Mac pro? Then we will likely be limited to 4 core products for some time to come.

Why is that scary? At least the 4 core part. There is a inverse relationship between clock speed in core count. More cores means slower clocks. Some folks want greater than 3GHz speeds. In fact, there have been several threads here bemoaning the lack of a 4GHz speed. If un-overclocked 4GHz is a value point for some then 4 cores is better (given the rest of Apple's design constraints ) . That actually would put the entry $2500 model in a better position against the "I can build that for $1,000 with my trusty screwdriver" crowd.

Depends upon what Intel does. But it would be surprising if the v2 line up went 4C , 6C , 8C in the 1600 series.

For the 2600 series sure that will have an entry point at 2x 6C ... but that is the case now. Again 12C, 16C , 20C would be the likely progression.

$2500-$6000+ with 4 , 6 , 8 , 12 , 16 , 20 cores looks very like something Apple would do.


The "non redo the Mac Pro" part is highly dubious since they explicitly said they would. At this point while not impossible, it is very improbable that they will do nothing. They've already invoked Osborne Effect... at this point they will likely just take their lumps and follow through.

 

[TMay]

Why is that scary? At least the 4 core part. There is a inverse relationship between clock speed in core count. More cores means slower clocks. Some folks want greater than 3GHz speeds. In fact, there have been several threads here bemoaning the lack of a 4GHz speed. If un-overclocked 4GHz is a value point for some then 4 cores is better (given the rest of Apple's design constraints ) . That actually would put the entry $2500 model in a better position against the "I can build that for $1,000 with my trusty screwdriver" crowd.

Depends upon what Intel does. But it would be surprising if the v2 line up went 4C , 6C , 8C in the 1600 series.

For the 2600 series sure that will have an entry point at 2x 6C ... but that is the case now. Again 12C, 16C , 20C would be the likely progression.

$2500-$6000+ with 4 , 6 , 8 , 12 , 16 , 20 cores looks very like something Apple would do.


The "non redo the Mac Pro" part is highly dubious since they explicitly said they would. At this point while not impossible, it is very improbable that they will do nothing. They've already invoked Osborne Effect... at this point they will likely just take their lumps and follow through.

I have a refurb Lenovo dual processor D20 with E5649's with a Quadro 4000 running Solidworks. The processors are something like $750 retail. The TDP for each processor is either 80W or 95W, and all turbo does is allow a single core to max out the processor TDP. 48 GB RAM per processor max. I bought a 480GB OCZ RevoDrive3X SSD to give me max performance, but that isn't installed yet.

Another way of looking at it is that the specced clockrate is derated to all cores in use, and turbo mode is single core clock rate at max TDP.

With that, I would expect that Apple will support as a minimum the 8 core E5-2600 V2 in the dual processor Mac Pro, probably topped out at a E5-2680 V2 / 130W TDP and maybe the 6 core in a single processor Mac Pro. That puts it in the same price range as the current Mac Pro's, but significantly more bang for the buck.

One of the nice things about the future Mac Pro's is that there are enough high end pro graphics cards to satisfy most any workflow, including the new Kepler based K5000 for mac from Nvidia. I would hope to see a few of the AMD pro cards such as the W8000, but that remains to be seen.

My expectation is that Apple will configure enough of its SSD blades (3 or 4) for a couple of TB max. This with PCIe 3 and TB should meet most anyones needs, and probably in a smaller package. I'd be happy with that and 2 1/2 inch drive slots for backup in lieu of 3 1/2 inch drives slots.

Of course, the Mac Pro actually has to arrive before I can buy it.

 

[Sophia.]

The people that NEED MacPros don't care how much they cost. When one or two jobs will pay for it, the cost is irrelevant.

I have to agree with Jester, Mac Pros pay for themselves if your lucky. If the top of the line Mac Pro costs £12,000 each I have enough saved for two (home & work). I doubt I am the only one with money in the bank for a Mac Pro or two.

If decide that it's no longer viable to make Mac Pros then I'll try to upgrade my current Mac Pro. People like myself will eventually move over to Windows or even Linux and I think that would hurt Apple in the long run...

 

[echoout]

I have to agree with Jester, Mac Pros pay for themselves if your lucky. If the top of the line Mac Pro costs £12,000 each I have enough saved for two (home & work). I doubt I am the only one with money in the bank for a Mac Pro or two.

If decide that it's no longer viable to make Mac Pros then I'll try to upgrade my current Mac Pro. People like myself will eventually move over to Windows or even Linux and I think that would hurt Apple in the long run...

Yep. If your business makes any money then paying for one is no big deal. Like a remodeler or mechanic paying for reliable tools.

Count me as one with money in the bank to go towards their top processor offering. If it doesn't happen then I'm getting a decked out Windows workstation. Not the end of the world.

 

[Garamond]

Really? That is good news, yet... call me Mr. Negative, but I don't believe we will see a Mac Pro with single or dual 8 core CPUs; never mind 10-core. I hope that I am proven wrong.

I think you will be proven wrong.